Was Judas an afterthought?

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

There are reasons for thinking that the Gospel of Mark was composed "roundabout" the year 70, or at least by the 90s if we want to interpret it as referencing persecutions in the time of Domitian.

Surely the allusions in GMark to Vespasian are clear enough: healing a blind man with spittle; restoring a lame limb by a touch. Interpreters can find links between Mark 13's "little apocalypse" and Josephus's signs presaging the destruction of the Temple.

But then we come to the middle of the second century and we read Justin's attempts to validate the Christian view of things. He explains that the Christian record confirms that the Twelve Disciples were sent out to the world by the resurrected Jesus even though they, all twelve it seems, had cowered and hidden themselves at the time he was arrested and executed.

So how could Justin possibly have known of the canonical gospels that all pinpoint Judas as the renegade member of the twelve, so that the twelve were not a unit up to the resurrection? Justin's narrative tells us that the twelve were a unit -- first followers of Jesus, then fleeing in fear at the time of the passion of Jesus, then hiding, then all being sent on their way to evangelize the world by the resurrected Jesus.

Surely Justin did not know the canonical gospels.

But but ... Justin did know that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter (and called James and John the Sons of Thunder) and that is something that is specific to GMark. But Justin also rattles off lots of other things that are only found, in our surviving manuscripts, in "late apocryphal" gospels. Example: Jesus was born in a cave. Or nowhere else at all. Example: the Jordan River erupted in flames when Jesus was baptized in it.

But I cannot see how Justin could have overlooked the story of Judas if he had known of the gospels that became canonical.

So soon after Justin we meet Tatian who is said to have composed a harmony of our four gospels.

Is it reasonable to surmise that after Justin wrote the works that we read today, that an earlier version of the Gospel of Mark was supplemented with the Judas details?

Is it not odd, or at least slightly eyebrow-raising, that in the Gospel of Mark, each time Judas is mentioned, he is identified as "one of the twelve" -- as if we might have forgotten that detail even though it was spelled out with demonic caps when he was first mentioned as one of the chosen twelve. There, the list of the twelve is concluded with "Judas, who also betrayed him". So we know Judas is going to betray him from the moment he is first named. So why do we read "who was one of the twelve" each time he is named in the later part of the book?
Mark 3:
[14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
[15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
[16] And Simon he surnamed Peter;
[17] And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
[18] And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
[19] And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.
Mark 14:
[9] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
[10] And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
[11] And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.
Mark 14:
[42] Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
[43] And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.
How easy is it to remove Judas as a betrayer from the above passages? Paul said Jesus was delivered up. Is there a connection here and if so, how seamless or well-seamed is it?
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Giuseppe »

Someone has proposed that in the Evangelion it was the demiurge who istigated the sinedrites to arrest Jesus. No mention of Judas at all there also.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Everybody has proposals. Everybody states their beliefs. I am looking for evidence-based argument! ;-)
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Giuseppe »

There is reason to believe that the original betrayer was a hostile divinity.

In the Ascension of Isaiah, if I remember well the Latin version, it is said that the "god of this world" crucified his own son. A rapid research on this forum may give the precise quotes.

This has moved some scholars to think that the Ascension was based on some anti-demiurgist text where the killer of Jesus was the demiurge.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:04 am There is reason to believe that the original betrayer was a hostile divinity.

In the Ascension of Isaiah, if I remember well the Latin version, it is said that the "god of this world" crucified his own son. A rapid research on this forum may give the precise quotes.

This has moved some scholars to think that the Ascension was based on some anti-demiurgist text where the killer of Jesus was the demiurge.
This is all very fine etc, but it does not relate to the Gospel of Mark. Yes, there can be all sorts of originating narratives about a betrayer or a deliverer of the sacrificial victim, but what I am interested in is what was known to mid-second century Justin Martyr and how that relates to what we know of the late first-century Gospel of Mark.
Giuseppe
Posts: 13732
Joined: Mon Apr 27, 2015 5:37 am
Location: Italy

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by Giuseppe »

Justin may have known Judas and his betrayal, only he didn't mention it because it was a pauline episode invented by a Paulinist.

The function of Judas is to make a place available for the otherwise 13° apostle: Paul.

At least so Volkmar.

Hence, since Justin was anti-Paul, then accordingly he didn't want a place for Paul among the 12, hence he rejected the story of a Judas the Betrayer.
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

Giuseppe wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 1:15 am Justin may have known Judas and his betrayal, only he didn't mention it because it was a pauline episode invented by a Paulinist.

The function of Judas is to make a place available for the otherwise 13° apostle: Paul.

At least so Volkmar.

Hence, since Justin was anti-Paul, then accordingly he didn't want a place for Paul among the 12, hence he rejected the story of a Judas the Betrayer.
We can imagine all sorts of reasons for not having the evidence that fits our hypotheses. But that's not how I like to work. My interest in this thread is as per the OP.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2817
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by andrewcriddle »

Hi Neil

Could you please clarify exactly which passages of Justin you are referring to ?

Thanks

If you mean Dialogue with Trypho
The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
then I don't think the mention of Judas' betrayal would have been relevant to Justin's argument.

Andrew Criddle
User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 8798
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by MrMacSon »

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:28 am There are reasons for thinking that the Gospel of Mark was composed "roundabout" the year 70, or at least by the 90s if we want to interpret it as referencing persecutions in the time of Domitian.
Whether persecutions attributed to Domitian happened is up for debate, see viewtopic.php?f=3&t=4596

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:28 am Surely the allusions in GMark to Vespasian are clear enough: healing a blind man with spittle; restoring a lame limb by a touch
It'd be interesting to know if the author of G.Mark got those tropes from Tacitus and Suetonius or from another source ...

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:28 am But then we come to the middle of the second century and we read Justin's attempts to validate the Christian view of things. He explains that the Christian record confirms that the Twelve Disciples were sent out to the world by the resurrected Jesus even though they, all twelve it seems, had cowered and hidden themselves at the time he was arrested and executed.

So how could Justin possibly have known of the canonical gospels that all pinpoint Judas as the renegade member of the twelve, [where] the twelve were not a unit up to the resurrection? Justin's narrative tells us that the twelve were a unit -- first followers of Jesus, then fleeing in fear at the time of the passion of Jesus, then hiding, then all being sent on their way to evangelize the world by the resurrected Jesus.

Surely Justin did not know the canonical gospels.
Good point/s ...
But but ... Justin did know that Jesus changed the name of Simon to Peter (and called James and John the Sons of Thunder) and that is something that is specific to GMark. But Justin also rattles off lots of other things that are only found...in "late apocryphal" gospels. Example: Jesus was born in a cave. Or nowhere else at all. Example: the Jordan River erupted in flames when Jesus was baptized in it.

But I cannot see how Justin could have overlooked the story of Judas if he had known of the gospels that became canonical.

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:28 am Is it reasonable to surmise that, after Justin wrote the works that we read today, that an earlier version of the Gospel of Mark was supplemented with the Judas details?
That's a rhetorical question? Would it have to be an earlier version of G.Mark?

neilgodfrey wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 12:28 am Is it not odd, or at least slightly eyebrow-raising, that in the Gospel of Mark, each time Judas is mentioned, he is identified as "one of the twelve" -- as if we might have forgotten that detail even though it was spelled out with demonic caps when he was first mentioned as one of the chosen twelve. There, the list of the twelve is concluded with "Judas, who also betrayed him". So we know Judas is going to betray him from the moment he is first named. So why do we read "who was one of the twelve" each time he is named in the later part of the book?

Mark 3:
[14] And he ordained twelve, that they should be with him, and that he might send them forth to preach,
[15] And to have power to heal sicknesses, and to cast out devils:
[16] And Simon he surnamed Peter;
[17] And James the son of Zebedee, and John the brother of James; and he surnamed them Boanerges, which is, The sons of thunder:
[18] And Andrew, and Philip, and Bartholomew, and Matthew, and Thomas, and James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus, and Simon the Canaanite,
[19] And Judas Iscariot, which also betrayed him.

Mark 14:
[9] Verily I say unto you, Wheresoever this gospel shall be preached throughout the whole world, this also that she hath done shall be spoken of for a memorial of her.
[10] And Judas Iscariot, one of the twelve, went unto the chief priests, to betray him unto them.
[11] And when they heard it, they were glad, and promised to give him money. And he sought how he might conveniently betray him.

Mark 14:
[42] Rise up, let us go; lo, he that betrayeth me is at hand.
[43] And immediately, while he yet spake, cometh Judas, one of the twelve, and with him a great multitude with swords and staves, from the chief priests and the scribes and the elders.
[44] And he that betrayed him had given them a token, saying, Whomsoever I shall kiss, that same is he; take him, and lead him away safely.
[45] And as soon as he was come, he goeth straightway to him, and saith, Master, master; and kissed him.
[46] And they laid their hands on him, and took him.

How easy is it to remove Judas as a betrayer from the above passages? Paul said Jesus was delivered up. Is there a connection here and if so, how seamless or well-seamed is it?
User avatar
neilgodfrey
Posts: 6161
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 4:08 pm

Re: Was Judas an afterthought?

Post by neilgodfrey »

andrewcriddle wrote: Sat Nov 20, 2021 2:10 am Hi Neil

Could you please clarify exactly which passages of Justin you are referring to ?

Thanks

If you mean Dialogue with Trypho
The remainder of the Psalm makes it manifest that He knew His Father would grant to Him all things which He asked, and would raise Him from the dead; and that He urged all who fear God to praise Him because He had compassion on all races of believing men, through the mystery of Him who was crucified; and that He stood in the midst of His brethren the apostles (who repented of their flight from Him when He was crucified, after He rose from the dead, and after they were persuaded by Himself that, before His passion He had mentioned to them that He must suffer these things, and that they were announced beforehand by the prophets), and when living with them sang praises to God, as is made evident in the memoirs of the apostles. The words are the following: 'I will declare Your name to my brethren; in the midst of the Church will I praise You. You that fear the Lord, praise Him; all you, the seed of Jacob, glorify Him. Let all the seed of Israel fear Him.' And when it is said that He changed the name of one of the apostles to Peter; and when it is written in the memoirs of Him that this so happened, as well as that He changed the names of other two brothers, the sons of Zebedee, to Boanerges, which means sons of thunder; this was an announcement of the fact that it was He by whom Jacob was called Israel, and Oshea called Jesus (Joshua), under whose name the people who survived of those that came from Egypt were conducted into the land promised to the patriarchs. And that He should arise like a star from the seed of Abraham, Moses showed before hand when he thus said, 'A star shall arise from Jacob, and a leader from Israel;' Numbers 24:17 and another Scripture says, 'Behold a man; the East is His name.' Accordingly, when a star rose in heaven at the time of His birth, as is recorded in the memoirs of His apostles, the Magi from Arabia, recognising the sign by this, came and worshipped Him.
then I don't think the mention of Judas' betrayal would have been relevant to Justin's argument.

Andrew Criddle
You know Justin wrote more than that paragraph/chapter. I am addressing anyone who is aware of Justin's works.

Pick any specific item that Justin has mentioned and explain why that should have been more "relevant to his argument" than the unmistakeable and unavoidable plot device of Judas's betrayal -- when Justin's narrative at multiple points leaves absolutely no room for such a betrayal.

I really do begin to wonder if you like being the dog that is programmed to yap at my heels every time I say anything here. :-)
Post Reply